Jump to content

sagedavis

Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sagedavis

  1. dude, you're quick, I was just editing my post as I figured that out. LOL. still weird with the numbering. Sage
  2. I am starting to try to learn how to use codelab at the moment, and find one thing fairly annoying. I get error on line 13. I click the error message and somehow it takes me to line 2 or whatever. I assume that this is just a numerical glitch of some sort. But I also have an error on line 133 and I don't have that many lines, and when I click it doesn't take me anywhere. I am really just starting so, can't comment on the wonderfulness of codelab. Sage
  3. This sig is created from scratch in PDN. The only outside image used was the photo of my face which I put onto the egg to look like I was part of the coloring of it. I decided not to use 3d programs to do this one to see what I could get out of PDN without it. Sage
  4. Rainshadow, My font is called Brigadoom Wide BRK I can't remember where it is that I found it, but a google search brought up this page http://www.getfreefonts.info/free_font.brigadoom.html and that site seems to be a great place. I collect fonts like crazy. Loki Cola (coca cola font rip off) and Walt Disney fonts, as well as some other really cool fonts are located at... http://simplythebest.net/fonts/ all for free. The Brigadoom font is not a 3d popout type font. I used anim8or (http://www.anim8or.com) to write out the name, extrude the test to 3d, and then give it a texture. I used anim8or actually to make the cylendar shape too, though, all of the textures and finishing touches were done using my new favorite program PDN... :-) Thanks for the compliment. Sage
  5. Hmm, my top five favorite people on this board overall. In No Particular Order. Me, Me, Me, Me Me Bwaahahahha, Actually, it's really hard to say who, EVERYONE HERE, has been so nice in helping with questions, and there are so many talented people here, it's just way too hard to choose. There are many who don't post much who might have talent, but, I would say that BoltBait is really a great sport with the plugins and tutes and everything. Helio obviously has a great artistic eye, just judging from his sig and avatar. Bark has a nice looking sig too, and is pretty helpful on the boards as well. I feel like I am trying to give a speach at an awards acceptance serimony. Thanks to all for the great work and help. Sage
  6. Firefly, not that my sig is perfect, but since we are rating eachother's sigs. I am caught between rating you an 8 out of 10 or a 9 out of 10. (cause I have to give my honest opinion) Sage.
  7. markopolo, No offence back but.. Not everyone uses the selection tool just to select things. the circle selection tool and the box selection tool are sometimes used as a means of adding a "color fill" Sometimes I want to type in the heigth and width of a box for instance, and then lock the aspect ratio of it so that I can easily make sure that I am cropping to a specific ratio. I also get a tad frustrated with the circle selection tool as it doesn't "stick" to where you start your circle, this is true of all painting imaging software, for some reason, your point where you click your mouse, doesn't stay put. I also think that the ability to type in should be used for the tolerance of the paint bucket and so on, because that that sliding bar thing is a bit weird for me, especially when it's faster to type. I mean, PDN is awesome, but, those are some improvements that I would request. Sage
  8. I'm all about thematic things. Easter would be cool, or is that "religiously intolerant"?... I mean, you can do bunnies and colored eggs if you wanted to too I guess... LOL... But seriously, I would like an Easter competition. Also, I think that one would have to have a set of rules for a comp too. For instance, my use of anim8or for 3d graphics might or might not be a good idea (depending I guess on the guidelines). Unless outside images are actually allowed? Sage
  9. Used Honda:: That's actually because they have to process (rerender) each frame of the movie. At 23.9 frames per minute, that's 1434 frames. That's a pretty fast computer to process that amount of images in only 4 hours. Reqarding the question at hand. I have a suspicion that some of the lines (around the eyes, and nose) were enhanced with makeup before the shoot. And I am sure that the makeup technique was different so as to manipulate all the lighting so that it would work well with the software. Actually, The cutout plugin is pretty good. You will need it to do what you want to do. Here's how you do it (I may later do a complete tutorial for this if I can). Open your image Make 2 copies of the background layer. name them whatever you want but for my purpouses I am going to name them Layer1 and Layer2 From top to bottom my layers would be Layer2 Layer1 Background Uncheck the box so that Layer2 is not visible at the moment. Double click Layer1 and change it's mode to "overlay" click "OK" Now, with Layer1 still selected, use the "cutout" plugin http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1832 It's hard to give specific numbers for this one, as it really depends on the size of your image, but, you want to get your image to look fairly toonish, but not discolored. now go to Layer2 Put a check in the box so that you can see it. Double click Layer2 and set it's blend mode to "multiply" Now use brightness and contrast here til the lines in the face and so on are dark enough for you. This should get you the effect that you are looking for, but. lighting counts, a lot of unfocused background stuff comes out too dark. So you might need to fine tune these protions individually. Hope this helps. Sage
  10. Bark, Thanks for that explination. As I said, I just assumed that working with image compressions was similar to working with other media types, perhaps I was wrong... your explination makes much sense. I will say, I have had some limitations working with other image software before. Ones which load a pallet based on the colors used in the image. This posed problems with blurring and such, and I always got confused as to what to do about it. See, I'm not a wiz with imaging... Your statements give me something to think about... Thanks for the correction. Sage
  11. Boo, Morphing is one way. using a slight blur (possibly motion blur) on your moving item could add a bit to the realism. Here's what you need to know. Movies (avi) are usually formatted to 24 (really 23.9) or 30 frames per second (FPS), for normal scenes, depending on the amount of detail that is needed, also depending on the target dvd player (PAL or NTSC). For realistic motion in a gif, you would need about the same. You could probably get away with 20 FPS though, and possibly even 15 (depending on the amount of detail you require). which means, at a minimum, you are going to need 15 images for a 1 second segment of a gif. If you don't have that kind of time on your hands, you may need to go with a morph program of some sort. I am not really familiar with morph programs, so, I couldn't help you there, but, your kind of stuck with makeing a lot of images for a smoother look, without one. Sage
  12. Hi all, I noticed on the plugins page that some plugins have a note at the top that says "this plugin has been added to the latest version of PDN" or something to that effect. Is it safe to assume that any and all plugins that do not have this blurb are ok to download? If I accidently download one that is already in PDN will it in anyway cause any conflict due to non-unique naming or anything like that? Thanks Sage
  13. This is great, I tried it out, mine didn't come out too good. I'll keep trying, but, I would add an aditional step. You can give a sort of fake refraction (I think that's the word I am looking for), but, using the trick to select the area of the water drop again, and then move down to the background layer. Click on "layers > Rotate and zoom". Put your rotation angles to 0... cause all you want to do here is just zoom to about 1.06. This is such a great tutorial. Thanks for it. Sage
  14. Bolt, at first I was a bit disappointed in this because I assumed it was something else. Like feathered edges that look like when you scratch the edges of a photo. Then I realized what it does. It's pretty good, and I see many issues with images that are not antialiased, or whatever, and having too much pixelation. This is great for smoothing them out. Keep up the good work. I would still like to find an effect that makes that sort of scratch look that I am looking for though. Thanks Sage
  15. I use notepad as well. Problem with editors such as microsoft, is that coding will be optimized for Internet Explorer, and some "effects" or tags, may not show up the same in Netscape. These are the two most widely used browsers (although firefox is really starting to come up in the world). Actually, this may not be the case these days as far as the mythilogical browser wars go, as I have been programming since 2000, so, perhaps there have been changes in browser tag acceptance, not sure, but, by doing everything by hand, I have a much easier time since I know what works in the major browsers. Also, you will find that most web development GUI applications add a LOT of mettadata (metta tags) that are useless to you, as well as the fact that, instead of using actual .css sheets (external), they use case by case styles, as well as manipulating all fonts within the font tag itself. Too many characters (in my opinion), which leads to longer DL times. Of course, this is just my personal pref, but, I have been called on to turn many a static HTML page into a dynamic PHP setup and refused because, I don't feel like reading through all of the code spit out by Dream Weaver and other applications. Sage
  16. Bark, Well, yes, Raw is uncompressed... no, it's not going to change anything, BUT... when you work with uncompressed (anything, video, sound, images), resizing and remastering, CAN (at times), make the final image come out better than working with a compressed file. This especially can work (with image) when you have antialiasing enabled (still haven't tested the AA in paint.net yet). The point is that working with a compressed file type will force any paint/image program to "predict" what the image will then look like compressed. You then further have the option of saving as a less "lossy" format such as TIFF, rather than JPG, and your image might actually come out somewhat better. It all depends on how badly distorted the origional image is. I do the same type of thing with my music and avi files. If they had been mp3 or avi previously, I convert them to an uncompressed format first and then work with editing them. In these arenas, the quality does in fact come out much better than if I worked directly with the lossy format, and I would assume the same could hold true of imaging, for the same logic. I don't expect for you to get any image to come out 20 times better, but, there will most likely be some noticable differences. Perhaps if you post one of the images, someone would be able to help you a little bit better? Sage
  17. Are you refering to something like "solar Flare" similar to Photoshop and Paintshop? I have been looking for a way to do them as well and I am not getting anywhere near close to the effect I am looking for, If there's a plugin for it, I can't find it. Sage
  18. Ok, Check out my sig now. What I have done here was to add a new layer. Created a white stripe and used blurring. This gave the "shine" a sort of a round look. You can add transparency to give it a cleaner more realistic look. Take a look in the tutorial section and check out the "glass buttons" tutorial. It gives a different way of achieving the effect. Sage
  19. How far away were you? I am assuming that your camer is digital. Your best bet really is to shell out a couple hundred bucks on a camera with at least a 10 (higher if you can get it) OPTICAL zoom. Where people get into trouble is that the cameras they buy may magnify "up to 60 times", but digital zoom is really crummy. With a 12 Optical zoom, you could probably get a good picture of a person from at least a football field away (Of course, this would have to be excellent lighting conditions). Night time images may come out grainy from far away. you really have to play around with the image though, try converting it to raw format and then working from it you might get better results. Sage
  20. Engraved glass where the writting looks like stone? I sort of don't get that. I do glass engravings. it doesn't look like stone, it looks more like white powder. If that is the effect that you are going for then. Create a new layer. Select the "A" (text tool), and you will notice up toward the top where you can pic your font, over to the right you will notice a drop down box that says "solid color"... You want to select "percent 70" Now, using a white color, type in the text that you want to use. Next you want to use the Blur effects Gaussian. I tried about 5 px, on mine with an arial text at 26, but, you will need to play around with the Gaussian numbers to suite you best. Next, you will want to decrease the layer's opacity a little bit so that you can sort of see a little bit through it... That's the basis of etching. I am not sure how to do the glass effect yet, maybe someone else can help you with that. Sage
  21. Um, I need to correct my statement... LOL I meant to say 75 or 80 percent, OF what it is, not less than what it is... that would only leave you with 200 px (give or take), areas... I just now reread what I wrote, color me embarassed. But I am sure you knew what I meant. Well, oh yeah, if all the pages are going to match the main page, then yeah that is perfect. Great style CMD... Laters. Sage
  22. These are all great responses. Thanks. Ok, so 2 years, that's actually not that long a way in the grand scheme of things. I will check out irfanview in the meantime. PDN rocks hard though. It's such an easy to use interface. I mean, I have a short wishlist of effects that I would like, but, overall, it's fantastic. Kudos to the programmer(s). Sage EDIT: Ok, I just checked out irfanview's batch processing. And WOW. I like it better than Paint Shop Pro's batch. I can easily just say what I want to resize to. I am all about an easy to use interface and this really is a great way to not have to go to my friend's house to work. Good stuff, thanks again. Sage
  23. LOL.. OK then... Great job CMD... Thanks for the check, I must admit that I am catching up on the shows I missed on Tivo, while reading the posts here, so, I might have missed that in this post somewhere. LOL "Giving credit where it's do, there are worst things you can do, but it's also quite clear..." Anyway, either way, it's fantastic work... And thanks for the correction Illnab Sage
  24. I am new to paint.net, both the program and the forum, but not to forums in general. I used the search function here to look up "Batch Processing", and recieved a whole bunch of unrelated posts. So, I decided to post a question here about it. A friend of mine has Paint Shop Pro on his computer, and I do a lot of work which requires me to do the same tasks to hundreds of photos, so, as I time saver, I end up going to his house to batch process off of his PSP. These processes are generally things like resizing, or adding a watermark logo, and so on. I do not see a way to do this in Paint.net, and I have no clue if a plugin to do so could even possibly be created. Can anyone tell me if maybe there is a batch process under my nose that I am missing? or, if there is a possibility that future releases will include it? PSP allows you to record your action and then save it as a process. I like that, and would like something similar, in Paint.net so that I don't have to go to my friends house every time I want to do a batch process. Thanks Sage
  25. Bolt, As a Pro Web Designer, I got to say, I like the way the site is looking. I would make 1 small suggestion. On your content pages I would make the width about 75 or 80 percent less than it is, forcing the text to wrap. I tell my clients all the time, that people don't mind scrolling down, but they do mind if a line of text, looks too long. While you have used a larger font (many Kudos for that), the lines of text still appear long. Also, tightening the width up a bit will give a more organized Pro look. Actually, I should say, more professional, because, it already looks pretty pro. That's just my opinion. Everything else is REALLY GOOD. Great layout, great color usage and the graphics are put together very well. Sage
×
×
  • Create New...